Good News!
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/161970_salmon25.html

I'm not sure this is really good news. Does this mean that there is now legal precedence that would require wild and hatchery steelhead to be treated equally? Yikes!

SA

Duro- How does that add up to good news?

My own opinion - this is not good news for the wild fish. If this stands, and I as I understand the case (not a lawyer, help me out here Todd), the 9th Circuit ruled that the Environmental groups that brought this appeal were found to not have standing because NMFS is still formulating their recovery plan mandated by the first Judge's ruling, then the Judiciary may have just sealed the doom of the wild fish. There is more to be said here, I'm just not sure where we go.

This is exceedingly BAD news for the patient... the HMO has just denied him coverage for life-saving diagnosis/treatment.

its good news only if you want to decimate all wild stocks and turn all salmon fishing into hatchery fish. Not to mention that these rulings were protecting the streams through developement restrictions.
There will for sure be more appeals to this ruling and a lot of work is yet to be done.

This politician believes that all fish (hatchery and wild) were created equally:

"This could be the best precedent ever set in Endangered Species Act case law," Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) said. "By arguing that some fish are somehow superior to other fish, environmentalists have once again revealed their radical beliefs that humans can do no good for species. Given modern science and common sense, this court just reaffirmed that such extreme positions are absurd and can be detrimental to species recovery. To be successful in our stewardship role we have to use all the tools at our disposal, especially advanced science."

I guess that we're all just a buch of radical environmentalists if we believe that wild fish are superior to hatchery fish.

Richard W. Pombo sounds like the politician in Idaho who said something like, "how can salmon almost be extinct when I can buy them in Albertsons any time?"

Just goes to show the knowledge of some of the people forming our fishing policies.

Come on Eddie...the 9th Circuit has got to be an icon in your book . How can you disagree with that impartial court?

Grandpa, I don't know about that, I do know that the 9th Circuit has made some wacky decisions in the past - this may be another one.

The 9th Circuit reaffirmed what the District Court found (sort of). Namely that NMFS can either list all Oregon Coastal coho (wild + hatchery) or they can list neither wild nor hatchery. They cannot list one but not the other. It's either both or none. As a result of that decision, Oregon coastal coho are no longer listed under the ESA.

That being the case, the amount of legal protection for these fish just went down considerably. In fact, that's why this suit was filed. So the timber companies and the resource extraction industries can continue to destroy salmon habitat without being held accountable. By anyone's standard, that can't be good news.

NMFS is currently undertaking a status review of all their ESA listings in light of the original District court ruling. Expect something later this spring. In my view, just because a salmon is raised in a hatchery does NOT mean that it's not threatened or otherwise at risk. If 95% of the salmon production in a river is located in one spot (a hatchery), that population is considerably more at risk, not less. Therefore, I would argue that if the wild population is not strong enough to stand on it's own, NMFS should list both hatchery and wild. In other words, protect them all.

In the judges findings he said that hatchery fish and wild fish were identical spieces genetically. And you cant protect one with out protecting the other.
Wonder if this will have an impact of the new WSR rule
Maybe this ruling is something the city of Forks can use if they decide to bring a suit against WSR.

This is good news if you are a simple minded, ignorant jackass.

The decision DID NOT say that hatchery fish and wild fish are the same, or that NMFS cannot make a distinction between the two. Neither did the original decision. The original decision said that THE WAY NMFS made the distinction in the case of Oregon-coho was inconsistent with the rules of the ESA, and therefore the current listing was illegal.

NMFS has plenty of sound scientific evidence for making a distinction between hatchery and wild fish, they just have to do it consistently, and in a way that makes sense relative to the leagal requirements of the ESA.

The Ninth Circuit decision seems to uphold the original decision, but only sort of; what it really said was that the Environmentalists don't have a case yet until NMFS takes some action in response to the original ruling (list both; list neither; make the distinction some new way; whatever).

As was mentioned, NMFS is working on that new policy as we speak, and this new ruling will probably not effect the outcome of that process very much. Peersonally, I doubt it would have had much effect even if the environmentalists (the group includes WT) had won.

What this does mean is that now, for the time being, Oregon Coast coho no longer have any federal protection. Yeah, that sounds like good news. NMFS is already reviewing a re-listing petition filed by the same environmetalists (submitted some time ago in case this happened), and they continue to work on their own policy and listing decisions based on the original ruling.

It will all begin to wash out this spring and summer. WT, Wild Steelhead Coalition, Trout Unlimited, American Rivers, and many other oraganizations and individuals will continue to stay engaged. The environmental and fish-conservation communities are committed to not letting hatchery fish be used as some kind of loophole for allowing the continued destruction of wild fish populations and the habitats they depend on.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

Maybe each of us should read why Judge Hogan did what he did, and why the court didn't overturn his decision! It may or may not change some of your views!
http://www.pacificlegal.org/misc/alsea.pdf

Cowlitzfisherman

This is clearly a case of the gay marriage, equal but separate, issue spilling over into our fisheries.

WSC = Radical Environmentalists

Maybe the state should be more politicly correct and change the name from fish hatcherys to something like "Salmon/steelhead Captive Breeding Program for the protection of native fish runs"

I would not be suprised to see hatchery fish production eliminated on streams where wild fish were ESA listed in order to regain the ESA listing to protect the few wild fish remaining....

If the govement doesn't eliminate them on there own I can almost guarentee you will see Lawsuits filed to close down the hatcheries...

Doesn't sound like a win to me, but then again... I thought releasing wild steelhead was a good idea...

Ok, I'm not the smartest guy...If the hatcheries are shut down on rivers where the wild runs are endangered, is that a good thing? Do they have that great an impact on the survival of "wild" fish? Seems like it's just nice to have a hatchery fish to keep..And how many years would it be until wild fish populations would be strong enough to handle intense fishing pressure? Seems like habitat loss and netting play a very large role in returns. Please forgive my ignorance, I'm still learning.

The worst possible scenario would be a delisting of the wild salmonid stocks, an increase in hatchery production, and the inevitable extinction of the wild stocks. Thanks Ramon for your analysis. It helps put my mind somewhat at ease that the worst case scenario will not happen. BTW - Where you been? We've missed you.

The Pacific Legal Foundation is yet another of those shadowy, conspiratorial, GOP groups. They were instrumental in what happened down at the Klamath River with water rights allocations. Clearly, they do not have the fishs' best interest as their core operating belief. And before I get flamed, yes my tongue is somewhat in cheek with the GOP group thing. However, there is enough truth in what I say to make me very concerned about supporting the GOP in this election cycle.

Well, in the case of the Nisqually, over 10 years and counting. And that's not intense pressure, that's any pressure.

Actually, I think I may have sounded a little overly sanguine.

I don't think the sky has actually fallen, and as I said, this decision probably won't have a large effect on processes that are already underway. But I should have made more clear that those processes could easily be and seem to be headed towards the kind of disasterous policies eddie is talking about. Very powerful forces beside the Pacific Legal Foundation would love to see an all-hatchery future. They're betting you'll accept the loss of the wild fish and over-farmed, over-logged, over-developed, over-polluted watersheds, if they can at least promise you harvestable numbers of hatchery salmon returning to those defeated rivers. This decision certainly does nothing to slow that idea down.

I just wanted to point out the PLF and its friends have not quite won the victory they're trying to crow about. Their golden future has not arrived just yet. They might have gotten a little closer, but there are plenty of groups wiling to keep fighting for those of us who would NOT be satisfied with that future.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

Boy it didn't sound all that bad Ramon, until you told us who the "player" were!

Talk about some one sided special interests!

They are the same LOL... It all tastes like chicken to me!

Talk about some one sided special interests! [/QB][/QUOTE]

You bet they are one sided the fish's side.

Bottom line is if we say a hatchery fish is the same as a wild fish, the wild fish will disappear in a generation or two. This suit was NOT brought by friends of the fish. If you do not care about wild fish this suit is a victory. If you do care it is a loss.

CFM,
Yes sir thats a pretty scary list that Ramon vb provided isnt it.Thats one of the reasons I said this is good news.Any loss in court for those groups is good news to me.And probably most average non elitist sportsfisherman.And when Washington Trout looses in court thats GREAT news.

Duroboat15,

So are you saying that an average, non-elitist sportfisherman has no concerns about saving wild salmon and steelhead?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

First off, the WSC's involvement in anything to do with this case is limited to reading the papers to see what's happening...

The end-of-the-road situation if PLF continues on this path and is successful is either;

1. Neither hatchery or wild fish will be listed, wild fish will go extinct, development will continue unchecked on water and habitat issues, which will not be stopped by those pesky wild fish and the ESA. Believe it or not, hatchery fish need these things, too, it's just not against the law to take them away from hatchery fish.

2. Both will be listed, hatchery production, which is detrimental to true wild fish, will be halted to protect the wild fish, there will be no fishing.

Duroboat, you continue to show your ignorance when you both say things that are obviously untrue, or clearly not thought out at all. You'd do well to put a little bit of thought into what opinions you hold and what you write about them.

Do you want to see the hatcheries closed?
Do you want to see the habitat trashed even more?
Do you care if the wild fish go extinct?

Ask yourself those questions about this issue before you jump into your anti-environment dancin' shoes and hit the dance floor.

This decision, taken to PLF's desired end, is the worse thing that could ever happen to listed fish, and for sportfishermen. The only goals they have are focused on more trees being cut, lower water quality standards, and making more $$ because of those things.

How could that ever possibly good for anyone except themselves?

Fish on...

Todd

Dave,
I guess looking into those enviormental groups and read about some of there achievments and goals.I decieded to go with the lesser of two evils.

Salmo g,
Dont put words in my mouth! I said nothing of the kind about average sportsman not careing about the fish.I said those enviormental elitist groups are no freinds ofthe average sportsman.And I believe thats 100% true.

DB15: I understand that some environmental groups can get a bit carried away, but I have absolutely no doubt that without them we would still have a Willamette River so polluted it occasionally catches fire, a Lake Washington so polluted no fish life would be possible and clear cuts from Alaska to California.

When you compare their achievements to those of the timber companies, I can't imagine how you can come down on the side of the timber companies. Hatchery fish are NOT the same as wild fish any more than wild turkeys are the same as hatchery turkeys.

Sometimes the lone voice against the many can be right, but this time you are letting your hatred of some environmental groups cloud your vision - unless that is you truly do not care about the fate of wild fish.

Duroboat15

I will stand by you on that assertion! Not all are the fishermen friend!


Cowlitzfisherman

For Immediate Release
February 25, 2004
Contact Brian Kennedy at (202) 226-9019

Ninth Circuit Court Sets Precedent for Science in Landmark ESA Case

Washington, DC - A ruling yesterday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed a lower court's decision that scientific contributions to species recovery must be incorporated in Endangered Species Act (ESA) decision making. At issue in this case was how the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) counted Oregon Coast coho salmon in determining the species' status.

Background: The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed suit in U.S. District Court charging that NMFS counted only naturally spawned salmon, disregarding hatchery spawned salmon, thereby keeping fish counts artificially low and invoking unnecessary protection under the ESA. District Court Judge Michael Hogan agreed, ruling that the agency acted illegally. As a result, NMFS instituted status reviews of salmon and steelhead listed under the ESA across Western States. Environmentalists then appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit, which also ruled in favor of PLF. In dismissing the appeal, the court ruled that environmentalists could participate in the public process on status reviews like other citizens and had no basis for suit.

"This could be the best precedent ever set in Endangered Species Act case law," Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) said. "By arguing that some fish are somehow superior to other fish, environmentalists have once again revealed their radical beliefs that humans can do no good for species. Given modern science and common sense, this court just reaffirmed that such extreme positions are absurd and can be detrimental to species recovery. To be successful in our stewardship role we have to use all the tools at our disposal, especially advanced science."

"Hopefully, this case will serve as a catalyst for the use of 21st century science and American ingenuity in species recovery," Pombo continued. "That's exactly what we need to do to be successful, and Americans understand that. Endless, frivolous litigation does nothing to save species, but that is the unfortunate state of the ESA today."

"With the Ninth Circuit's dismissal of this appeal, the 'sky is falling' rhetoric of hard-core environmental activists has been debunked and their true agenda exposed," said PLF attorney, Russ Brooks. "This attempt to control private land use in the name of species protection has been successfully shut down. Families in the Pacific Northwest are sick of environmental hysterics that have resulted in rising home prices, choking traffic, higher taxes and a slowed economy," Brooks continued. "Chalk up a win for people with today's decision."

According to Brooks, the biggest impact of the decision is the fact that it reinstates the district court's order invalidating and setting aside the coho listing, which had been postponed during the appeal. Consequently, the Oregon Coast coho listing no longer exists and may not be enforced. This decision stands to have huge implications for land stewards and natural resource providers-such as farmers, ranchers, and timber harvesters -- as well as local governments and citizens struggling with infrastructure development of schools, hospitals, and highways.

Following news of the decision, PLF called on NMFS to promptly complete its review of the hatchery policy and salmon and steelhead listings, consistent with the district court and Ninth Circuit decisions. NMFS has missed several deadlines in releasing the new hatchery policy and the results of its status review.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Foods made from hemp, a less-known cousin of marijuana, can't be outlawed by the US government's narcotics agency, under a court ruling after a 2-1/2-year legal battle.

The ruling Friday by the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals was hailed by a coalition of companies that make hemp-based foods including waffles, vegetarian burgers and nutrition bars.


The court ruled that the Drug Enforcement Administration overstepped its authority by issuing a so-called zero-tolerance rule for the active ingrdient in marijuana, THC, or tetrahydrocannabinols.


The court ruled that the DEA officials "can regulate foodstuffs containing natural THC if it is contained within marijuana, and can regulate synthetic THC of any kind. But they cannot regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana -- i.e., non-psychoactive hemp products."


The decision "is a huge boost to the hemp food market, and we expect to see many more hemp food products on store shelves," said David Bronner of the Hemp Industries Association, and maker of organic hemp nutrition bars.


"Based on today's decision, the court reasonably views trace insignificant amounts of THC in hemp seed in the same way as it sees trace amounts of opiates in poppy seeds."


A DEA spokesman said Monday no decision had been made on whether to appeal the ruling.


"It's being looked at by our chief counsel's office," said DEA spokesman Ed Childress.


DEA officials had argued that stopping marijuana growing could be rendered more difficult if hemp were legal, because it would require agents to take samples for analysis before determining whether a plant is marijuana or hemp.


"There is basically no difference beween a hemp plant and a marijuana plant. The main difference is the level of THC," said Childress.


Hemp oil has long been used for industrial purposes but more recently has been found to have an exceptional nutritional profile -- containing essential fatty acids found in fish that are considered important for good health.


US hemp food companies say they observe reasonable THC limits similar to those adopted by European nations, Canada and Australia, to ensure low levels of THC.

Here is a list of the board of directors of the outfit that brought the litigation claiming a wild coho and a hatchery coho are the same fish. Judge their intent for yourself.

http://www.pacificlegal.org/misc/plfboard.pdf

KK,

You're killin' me...but let me be the first to ask that you don't post any pictures of that!

Todd

Thanks CFM thats what I was thinking when I read his post.Nice Edit!

Grandpa: Why the post about hemp? I have been tryint to figure it out and decided it must be for one of the following reasons:

1. If we all ate more hemp products we would argue less.

2. If we all smoked more hemp products we would fish less and therefore save more wild fish.

3. If we ate more hemp poducts we would all have the munchies so bad we wouldn't care if it was a wild or hatchery fish as long as we could eat it.

4. You think anyone who doesn't agree with you is smoking hemp.

What the heck WAS your reason?

Kanektok Kid

Didn't mean to nail you, but let's just say we can disagree with each other opinion without trying to put each other down. Fair enough?

Dave, grandpa lost me too on that one, and that hard to do!

Cowlitzfisherman

DV,

I think the reason for the hemp article was...uh...umm...it was...umm...yeah, the hemp article, right?

Oh, yeah! The reason was, umm...Hey! Dave! Pass me the Cheetos, would ya?

Now, where was I? Umm...ummm....oh, yeah, the hemp article. What was your question about it again?

Let's see...(munch, munch)...umm...uhhh...the reason was...umm...ummm...

Hey! Somebody fix the CD player...it's skipping again. It's not? Oh.

Anyway...where'd the Cheetos go?

Hemp article. Hmmm. What hemp article?

Oh, that one. Didn't I already answer your question? No? Ok...what was your question again?

....truckin', got my chips cashed in, truckin'..da da da da dum...(with the music)...Oh, yeah...hemp article.

Well, I hope that clears things up.

Where are those Cheetos?

Fish on...

Todd

You guys who think this is anything but bad for fishing are nuts. Whether you are a fly-fishing C&R elitest or a fish bonking plunker this is bad news.

You may have issues with a lot of the things groups like Washington Trout support, but this is one issue where you should be glad they have the resources and shyster lawers to fight this kind of coporate greed.

I think most of us can agree that habitat is one of the most important factors in having successful fishing. If the Pacific Legal Foundation has its way you can kiss that good-bye.

All those involved are so because of their own interests. I'm not a stealhead fisher, so I've not commented on any of these threads. But there seems to be a strong sentiment from the Feds to squash biased local policies. I think we will all benefit from the spirit of this decision. Local agencies often try to circumvent the actual mandate, to suit their own interests. And in a court of law (a real court of law) that doesn't fly. I hope this sends a clear message to our agencies. If you don't support your policies with science, you will not succeed. If what you propose contradicts science, you will not succeed. I hope this means the courts are not going to sit still for special interests, no matter which one.

Dave the hemp article was simply another 9th circuit court of schlameels ruling. Just to throw you off topic for a second.

The list of the plaintiffs was a list of people who no doubt make lots of money and probably don't care much about fishing or fish.

Last but not least I don't know the background of this case and therefore need to look into it some more before making any knee-jerk and/or insulting remarks. I am all over protecting fish but I also like my property rights and have to admit I like to make money alot and keep it too.

A wise old sage once said: "If at first you don't succeed, keep on suckin til you do suck seed."
Tell me who said that and I will send you a genuine autographed foil helmut...guaranteed to deflect the damaging karma emitting from lawyers.

Steeliegreg: This is what you said:

"This is good news if you are a simple minded, ignorant jackass."

Oh the irony in that statement!

So many clowns...so few circuses.....sigh

Curly Howard of the Three Stooges.

Make that triple thick grampa.

Plunker.....Grandpa will have to follow through on his promise and send you the official foil helmut. You are correct. Send me an email with your address.

Here is some more info on this subject.
http://oia.org/salmonnewsletter.htm

Todd you might want to read this closely.

This is BAD!

Why is it that both sides are so afraid to hear the other side's views, and then debate the merits of what each other opinions are? What are people afraid of? It's great to see "both sides of any issue, before each of us make up our mind!

Who what that great person who once said:

"There is nothing to fear, but fear itself" what are you guys fearing? ?

So if hatchery fish replace the wild fish, what is going to happen when budget cuts start eliminating hatchery production?

Exactly CFM!!
Im sure both sides have biased information of some kind.And its best to look at both sides on an issue.But it seems the some people may indeed be afraid of what they may learn.

I belong to that group that Duroboat calls elitist (Wild Steelhead Coalition) and we used some biased information to push for the moritorium. We got our information for our charts that show a steady decline in wild fish numbers over a 20 year average from one agency. WDFW. WE used there own data to show the decline, hows that for biased information!!

Actual data on Oregon Coastal wild coho are provided at this web site.
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spawn/coho.htm

It shows Oregon Coast coho spawners were about 250,000 the last couple years and about 98 % wild. It also shows they have increased greatly in recent years.

These fish could come off the endangered species list soon -because there are abundant wild fish, not because of hatchery fish.

I was hoping to hear duroboats opinion about the biased data used by WSC?

Aunty, that is a conservative view that I can live with wholeheartedly!!

Jerry,
My post said that Im sure both sides have some. I didnt say all now did I.
Also you seem to be talking a differant topic.Your talking WSR and this thread was concerning a case about Coho salmon in Oregon.
But yes I understand this case could change everything concerning wild vs hatchery fish.

The true cost of salmon by the pound is astronomical thanks to all the mitigation going on.

And I wonder what the true total cost to the tax payers is going to be to save "wild" fish.

Dave,
Did you know that the BPA is a Washington Trout supporter? I saw that on the WT website today.Also noticed there list of supporters for there Benafit auction looks a little shorter than last year.
AuntyM could that shorter list be a result of all the e-mails you sent to there supporters last year?

Duro: I did not know that. Don't know what to think of that? But I still beleive BPA would love to be able to stop trying to save the wild salmon.

That is a interesting link Aunty I hadnt seen that one yet.

Dave,
I was surprised to see BPA on there list too.But I really was shocked to see they also receive support from a couple of the tribes.

Try and look at it this way...

Anyone who uses river water, habitat, upland habitat near rivers, or fish, will benefit from more fish in the water. This includes BPA, and all the tribes.

The key is how much are they willing to put into it to improve the status of the fish populations.

If WT could save the fish and all BPA would have to do is donate a few $$ and not have to change anything they do, it would be a very happy and pro$perou$ day for the BPA. This goes for everyone else, too.

Fish on...

Todd

BPA is required by law to carry out measures to conserve fish and wildlife impacted by the hydro sytem on the Columbia. One of the ways they meet this responsibility is to fund research and restoration projects. BPA funded a multi-year research project developed and implemented by WT to locate, identify, and catalogue remaining native resident-trout populations in the headwaters of mid-Columbia tributaries.

BPA awarded the funding based on the merits of the proposal. Does that mean that BPA "supports" all that WT does? You'll have to ask them. It does mean that they supported WT's research proposal and our ability to carry it out. On our website we gratefully acknowledge that support. Does that mean we support everything the BPA does? I'll allow you all to examine WT's record and decide for yourselves.

What I really want to know is: who is this person posting under Aunty M's name, and what have you done with her?

(BTW, Bill Bakke is NOT crazy. He knows too much about what he's talking about not to be listened to. Unfortunatley, what he knows about the science and the politics can make him seem a little cynical, but he is romantic and optimistic enough to stay in the trenches every single day. We're lucky to have him, whether you believe it or not.)

Ramon VB
Washington Trout

Fair enough, Aunty.

I was really trying to do just that, but as usual being too glib. We're lucky to have you too, whether I believe it or not.

Ramon Vanden Brule
Washington Trout

AuntyM; Can I have the ice skate concession?

Release all wild ice skates!!

After reading Bill Bakke's statement he sure didnt sound very optimistic about the future of "native/wild" fish.